The OP assumed around $899, so if so yes. The RX10iv came in at about 2x that.
Upvote
0
Canon PowerShot V3 is Coming Later in 2025
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- powershot v1 powershot v3
josephandrews222
I Shot the Sheriff, but I Did Not Shoot the Deputy
Sort of generally speaking, if specs and features are more or less equivalent when comparing a pair of cameras, I am prepared to pay a premium for small size!
Choice is good, and when it comes to Canon gear, chances are good I'll buy both
Upvote
0
"it won’t have the same potato image quality that the Nikon P1xxx series of cameras have"
The P1000 is a small sensor camera, with the all the associated limitations, but the lens is actually remarkably good for such an extreme zoom range. I have one and until the R7 + 200-800 came along, the P1000 delivered shots that were not easy to repeat with any other setup when portability is one of the required parameters. The attached image is a 100% crop at ISO 400 and 3000mm equivalent. Yes, the R7 with the 200-800 can do better with a much higher keeper rate, but "potato" seems a bit harsh.
The P1000 is a small sensor camera, with the all the associated limitations, but the lens is actually remarkably good for such an extreme zoom range. I have one and until the R7 + 200-800 came along, the P1000 delivered shots that were not easy to repeat with any other setup when portability is one of the required parameters. The attached image is a 100% crop at ISO 400 and 3000mm equivalent. Yes, the R7 with the 200-800 can do better with a much higher keeper rate, but "potato" seems a bit harsh.
Upvote
0
The ZS100 and ZS200 have relatively poor lenses. If you look at this comparison
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
you can see that the ZS100 barely outresolves the ZS60 (with a 1/2.3 imager) or even the FZ300 (with a 12 MP 1/2.3 imager). The FZ1000 wins hands down. These shots are at some mid range (likely 50-80mm equivalent) where the lenses all should be performing well. At the long end, the FZ300 will put the ZS100 to shame for resolution, albeit with some loss of dynamic range and high ISO capability. Bottom line, sensor size and pixel count is only half of the resolution equation. The lens in front of the sensor is the other half and almost all small sensor cameras are lens constrained thanks to diffraction limiting. In addition to that, the ZS100 just has a relatively poor lens.
Upvote
0
Has Canon stated at that, or is it merely a rumor? The V1 certainly is not a replacement for the SX70 HS, so there’s not a lot of logic going on there.
Upvote
0
Hopefully, Canon won't screw us photographers who would like an EVF, missing on the V1. I will not touch a VI or any camera without an EVF. Although I love my Canon gear, I am looking for a small ILC camera from travel. If Canon would put out something like a Lumix S9, but with an EVF, I think it would be a hit, but I doubt that they are listening. After all, I'm only a lowly high-amateur photographer, not a videographer....
Upvote
0
Sadly, the G3X didn't come with a built-in EVF (but of course the SX70 did!) and I can't help but feel that the V3 will be more of a G3X than SX70.
Upvote
0
i had no idea the compact cameras were cataloged on that site. i guess i will check out the zs100 v canon v3 comparison when it becomes available. or is a better lens at odds with compact camera...The ZS100 and ZS200 have relatively poor lenses. If you look at this comparison
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
you can see that the ZS100 barely outresolves the ZS60 (with a 1/2.3 imager) or even the FZ300 (with a 12 MP 1/2.3 imager). The FZ1000 wins hands down. These shots are at some mid range (likely 50-80mm equivalent) where the lenses all should be performing well. At the long end, the FZ300 will put the ZS100 to shame for resolution, albeit with some loss of dynamic range and high ISO capability. Bottom line, sensor size and pixel count is only half of the resolution equation. The lens in front of the sensor is the other half and almost all small sensor cameras are lens constrained thanks to diffraction limiting. In addition to that, the ZS100 just has a relatively poor lens.
Upvote
0
The Canon G3x , G5xII, and G7x II and III had very decent lenses as do most of the Sony RX100 series, albeit there you have to put up with the Sony UI. The other site that has a pretty comprehensive list of reviews (often with more useful info on the compact camera lenses) is https://www.cameralabs.com/camera-reviews/ .
Upvote
0
As always people are expecting miracles when I’d be happy with not having to buy a Sony RX100 VII because the Canon G5X isn’t made and the G7X lost its EVF.
I just want something I can take on a work trip. I love my R6 but it’s not exactly subtle!
I just want something I can take on a work trip. I love my R6 but it’s not exactly subtle!
Upvote
0
I’m sadly inclined to agree with this. Canon is is just following Sony like it has for years. It’s seen the ZV-1 and wants part of that market. It’s not innovation it’s iteration.
Upvote
0
Like a lot of others, I'm lamenting the lack of a quality, affordable compact superzoom. My main camera is a 70D. But my SX720 was always in my pocket/beach bag/bike pack. Unfortunately it died last summer. Went looking for a replacement and guess what? No one was making an affordable compact.superzoom any more.
My night time/ indoor walk around camera is my G16. I know there is a relationship between sensor size and zoom capabilities and I don't know what the formula is, but the 1/1.7 senor in my G16 produces noticably better better pics than 1/2.3 sensor in sx720. Is the 1.7 too big to accommodate a long zoom? Maybe not 40x, but a 20x zoom with that sensor.would be a great compromise between size,. affordability and zoom.
I think the G16 offers a great starting point to build on for an affordable compact superzoom. Especially if they can keep the lens as fast as it is on the G16.
Very good IQ for a compact camera, hot shoe and a (somewhat inaccurate) OVF.
Thoughts?
My night time/ indoor walk around camera is my G16. I know there is a relationship between sensor size and zoom capabilities and I don't know what the formula is, but the 1/1.7 senor in my G16 produces noticably better better pics than 1/2.3 sensor in sx720. Is the 1.7 too big to accommodate a long zoom? Maybe not 40x, but a 20x zoom with that sensor.would be a great compromise between size,. affordability and zoom.
I think the G16 offers a great starting point to build on for an affordable compact superzoom. Especially if they can keep the lens as fast as it is on the G16.
Very good IQ for a compact camera, hot shoe and a (somewhat inaccurate) OVF.
Thoughts?
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
I Shot the Sheriff, but I Did Not Shoot the Deputy
...your question here is a good one.
I guess my frame of reference here is Canon's S series of cameras.
I own an S95 and it has a 1/1.7" sensor, enables acquisition of marvelous pictures...and is outfitted with a 28-105 equivalent lens.
The S120 also has a 1/1.7" sensor (CMOS)...and its lens is 24-120 equivalent.
Your SX720 went out to what?! 960!
I'll continue shouting that Canon could charge a premium for a pocket-sized 'S-series-sized' camera full of the latest and greatest electronics. I would buy one. Or maybe two.
But the S120 only went to 120. You want 8X more!
I'd like to hold one of those in my hands...
I guess my frame of reference here is Canon's S series of cameras.
I own an S95 and it has a 1/1.7" sensor, enables acquisition of marvelous pictures...and is outfitted with a 28-105 equivalent lens.
The S120 also has a 1/1.7" sensor (CMOS)...and its lens is 24-120 equivalent.
Your SX720 went out to what?! 960!
I'll continue shouting that Canon could charge a premium for a pocket-sized 'S-series-sized' camera full of the latest and greatest electronics. I would buy one. Or maybe two.
But the S120 only went to 120. You want 8X more!
I'd like to hold one of those in my hands...
Upvote
0
There is a kind of double whammy with long lenses and increased senor size. In the shorter lens range, the weight of the lens will be roughly proportional to the cube of the sensor diagonal, so for a, say, 24-70 equivalent lens with the same aperture, lens for a 1/1.7 sensor will weigh a little less than twice as much as one for a 1/2.3 sensor. The second whammy comes when you want a "long" zoom. For a telephoto lens, the formula FL/F , where FL is focal length and F is the max aperture of the lens, will typically define the size of the front lens element. For example, a 200mm, f/4 lens needs a minimum 50mm objective. Once again, the cube law of weight to linear dimension holds, because a lens is solid piece of glass. Note that for any significant telephoto length, the FL/F relationship dominates and the lens will over-illuminate a small sensor. A 1/2.3 sensor has a 7.66mm diagonal and a 1/1.7 sensor (as used by Canon) has a 9.30mm diagonal. You can do the math, but beware that actual focal length (not equivalent) will define the size of the front element for any reasonably fast telephoto. The actual focal length increases linearly with sensor dimension for equivalency. This math is why most super zooms are very slow at the telephoto end. Even the audaciously ambitious Nikon P1000 is f/8 at the long end and it has an actual focal length of 539mm with a 77mm filter thread (i.e. pretty big). Note that 539mm f/8 full frame lens will not require a bigger front element, so the 1/2.3 sensor is only using a tiny bit of the center of the image from that (actually very good) lens.
Upvote
0
Wow thanks for the math lesson! At least I can no longer claim to not know what the formula is for zoom vs sensor size vs max apperature. 
What led me to thinking that a 1/1.7 camera could yield a more compact and hopefully affordable travel (super?) zoom, were the rumors that canon will be releasing the V3 later this year which will be based on their new 1.4 inch sensor.
I suspect if that camera comes to market, it's going to be larger (and more expensive) than what I'm looking for.
I assumed, that a similar camera based on 1/1.7 sensor would definitely be smaller and hopefully cheaper.
What led me to thinking that a 1/1.7 camera could yield a more compact and hopefully affordable travel (super?) zoom, were the rumors that canon will be releasing the V3 later this year which will be based on their new 1.4 inch sensor.
I suspect if that camera comes to market, it's going to be larger (and more expensive) than what I'm looking for.
I assumed, that a similar camera based on 1/1.7 sensor would definitely be smaller and hopefully cheaper.
Upvote
0
I looked up your s120. It looks like a compact version of the G16. I went with the G16 because I wanted a hot shoe and view finder. Hopefully someone at Canon is reading this.
Upvote
0
So here is an informative chart (scroll down a bit). https://commonlands.com/blogs/technical/cmos-sensor-size . The V1 has a 12x18 sensor which calculates to a 21.6mm diagonal and Canon APS-C sensors are 14.8x22.3 with a 27.2mm diagonal. The common numbers like 1/2.3", 1/1.7",1", 4/3", and now 1.4" are all based on assumed outside diameter of a vidicon tube (once used in TV cameras) that would produce the desired image size. Note that the chart says "CRT diagonal" which is a bit misleading, albeit a vidicon could be classified as a type of CRT. Only APS-C, APS-H, FF, and large format sensors are sensibly defined by their actual size. The rest are all marketing BS that you have sift through to get the actual size. In any case, lens diameter (for short lenses and a given f stop) is going to be proportional to the diagonal size of the sensor. A very small camera can still be made with the V1 sensor, but it could not have long zoom range if the lens were to be even reasonably fast. Note that the V1 has an approximate 24-75 mm (FF equivalent) range when run in the crop mode. The catch with making the sensor smaller is the problem of shrinking pixels. The V1 has the Canon exclusive DPAF feature and (along with the M6 II, 90D, and R7) has the highest pixel density of any DPAF sensor and note that means that it has a total pixel count of 48 MP (44 MP effective). It is unclear how far the Pixels can be shrunk and still make DPAF functional. The fact that Canon has, at least for now stopped at 45 MP with FF DPAF sensors (the 5DS-r was not DPAF) and the R7 has been,. at least by some, accused of not being as reliable at focusing as the FF Canons or even the 24 MP APS-C Canons, would suggest that we may be near the limit of practical pixel shrinking for reliable DPAF. If that is true, then for Canon to produce a 1/1.7 P&S camera would effectively be a step backward, in that it would not have DPAF. Time will tell.Wow thanks for the math lesson! At least I can no longer claim to not know what the formula is for zoom vs sensor size vs max apperature.
What led me to thinking that a 1/1.7 camera could yield a more compact and hopefully affordable travel (super?) zoom, were the rumors that canon will be releasing the V3 later this year which will be based on their new 1.4 inch sensor.
I suspect if that camera comes to market, it's going to be larger (and more expensive) than what I'm looking for.
I assumed, that a similar camera based on 1/1.7 sensor would definitely be smaller and hopefully cheaper.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
